I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to you. Today, you stand
on the threshold of your legal career. In a few minutes you will recite
your oaths as an attorney and as a commissioner of the Superior Court,
and cross that threshold to enter the worthiest of professions. Your
entrance into this noble profession is well-deserved, yet comes with
great responsibility.

A few short weeks ago, this Court participated in its annual Law Day
ceremony, the theme of which was "The Rule of Law." We all understand
that ours is a country of laws and not of men. As Thomas Paine explained
in A Common Sense, "For as in absolute governments the king is law, so
in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no
other." In the world in which we now live, I suggest that remembering
this fundamental principle and striving to protect it is as critical
today as it was when our nation was founded.

Of course, the basics are known to you already. Our constitutional
democracy depends upon the separation of powers amongst three co-equal
branches of government, checks and balances and a legal system charged
with the protection of individual rights.

In a country, like ours, that is defined by freedom for all its
people, itís sometimes easy to take for granted this form of government
as well as the freedoms it protects. It can also be all too easy for us
to take for granted the inherent promise that our system makes to people
when they walk into a courthouse.

The promise is simply this: No matter who you are, or where you come
from, no matter how much money you make, or what color you skin is, what
sex you are, or how and if you worship, you will be treated fairly, and
the judge will make his or her decision based on the facts of the case
and the applicable law. The promise is that decisions will be made free
of passion and prejudice and untainted by public opinion.

This promise is served and protected first and foremost by the
maintenance of an independent judiciary. Lawyers, from the first day in
law school, talk a great deal about the rule of law - the fundamental
principle that the law, not the passions or prejudices of the moment
will govern the determination of judicial decisions. It is this rule of
law that all Americans hold sacred. This is not America's goal for its
citizens, it is America's promise.

The concept of judicial independence ensures that each decision will
be made only in accordance with the laws applicable to that case.
Judicial independence makes possible the protection of fundamental
rights, such as freedom of expression, assembly, religion, fair trial by
an impartial jury and more that are shared by all Americans and
guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions.

Institutional independence is the concept that our constitution
contemplated three branches of government all with a separate role to
play in our democracy and all coequal. It is the co-equal nature of the
three branches and the limitations on the powers of each of the branches
which is the single greatest protector of our freedoms. Across this
country today the threats to decisional and institutional independence
are growing and have been the subject of much study and concern. For
example, the under-funding of the basic needs of the judiciary and
attempts to divest courts of rule making authority are among the varying
threats to the institutional independence of the courts.

Decisional independence, on the other hand, is the freedom of the
judiciary to render impartial decisions on the cases that come before
us, based solely on the facts and the rule of law, without influence,
threats, or fear of reprisals.

To ensure the protection of our fundamental rights, we, as citizens
must all be vigilant concerning threats to decisional independence.
Improper pressures on the judiciary can arise from a number of sources.
In our state we are fortunate that we do not elect the justices of the
Supreme Court or judges of the appellate and superior Courts. In states
where they are elected, campaigns have been waged against particular
judges, not because they violated their sworn oaths to make fair
determinations based on law and facts, but because those decisions flew
in the face of current public opinion on a particular topic or were
adverse to a particular interest group. But in states, such as ours,
where judges are free of election pressures, there are still other
issues that implicate decisional independence. During the judicial
appointment or reappointment process, those involved in this process may
become preoccupied, not with measuring the candidates level of respect
for the rule of law, but with how a potential candidate is likely to
decide a particular issue with which he or she has not yet been faced,
or with the thought processes that went into a specific decision in
which a sitting judge participated.

Regardless of how judges assume their positions on the bench, they
all additionally must face the pervasive and instantaneous coverage, and
in some instances sensationalized coverage of events, on the internet,
by the print media, and by the electronic media that make it
increasingly difficult to ensure that parties receive a fair trial in
high profile cases. Bloggers and other members of the press as well as
social commentators routinely express opinions on guilt or innocence of
defendants long before the facts are complete and the determinations
made. If the result of the trial is other than as projected, then the
conclusion is that there has been a failure in our system. The
protections afforded the press under our constitution do not allow and
should not allow censorship but it is up to us, the lawyers and judges
of this great system, to do all in our power to ensure that in our
American democracy, the rule of law, not concern for satisfying the
opinions of others remains paramount. In order to accomplish this we
must be ever vigilant in guarding both decisional and institutional
independence.

At the same time, judges are the first to recognize that judicial
independence must be balanced by judicial accountability. Our system of
independent courts has built-in protections that insure judicial
accountability. On an institutional level, the Judicial Branch budget is
decided by the legislature after hearings and discussions. On a
decisional level, virtually all court proceedings are open to the
public. Written decisions are available for inspection and discussion.
Appeals, as of right in most cases, require that a court of appellate
judges review the legal accuracy of a decision, ensuring a measured
second look at decisions outside the complicated arena of a trial
courtroom. Cases involving our most fundamental individual rights can be
reviewed by the highest court of the land.

Additionally, I suggest that the responsibility to defend the
independence of our courts rests with all Americans because it benefits
all Americans. Recently, an example of the press understanding and
protecting the decisional independence of the judiciary occurred in a
very high profile case here in Connecticut. A convicted sex offender was
scheduled to be released from prison after having served the proscribed
period of incarceration. The press noted the scheduled event and
reported on the extraordinary consternation of the community. It was the
topic of talk shows and the rhetoric grew as the date of release grew
closer. Eventually the attorney general, in response to the concerns
expressed by the community, moved the court to delay the release of the
defendant despite the fact that the defendant had served his sentence. A
hearing was scheduled. The motion was flatly denied by the judge as the
court properly ruled that the attorney general had no standing to bring
such a motion. The Journal Inquirer, a newspaper from Manchester,
Connecticut, praised the action by the judge as upholding the rule of
law. Notably, the journal observed that "The justice system has
succeeded, remarkably so in light of the pressure applied to it from the
top of the government to induce it to rule by something other than the
law at the expense of someone suddenly despised throughout the state.
Judge Handy had reminded those applying the pressure that the law is no
respecter of persons and that the Constitution forbids ex-post facto
laws. She could have quoted Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter's
droll observation that 'the safeguards of liberty have been forged in
controversies involving not very nice people.'" I would suggest that the
newspaper was doing its part to preserve the rule of law by recognizing
that the judge could not and should not succumb to public pressure. In
my opinion, this reporting represents the best of the journalistic
world.

As this example demonstrates, non-lawyers sometimes will stand up for
the importance of the rule of the law. The reality is, however, that it
often falls to attorneys to actively defend the fundamental principle
that judges must be free from public pressure in order to fulfill our
constitutional obligation to make independent decisions, however
unpopular those decisions may be. As one justice said "Öthe right to do
the right thing, or, believing it to be the right thing, to do the wrong
thing.". Attorneys have a duty to seek appellate review and correction
of a decision premised on a mistaken application of the law, where a
judge, believing it to be the right thing, did the wrong thing. When you
take the oath today to uphold the constitution of the United States and
the state of Connecticut you, in effect, take on your first client - the
judiciary. As officers of our legal system, you especially are
responsible for defending the judiciary from unwarranted intrusions on
its independence.

As an attorney, how will you do this? Sometimes there is simply a
public misconception about the parameters of a court's jurisdiction to
entertain certain issues, or a lack of expertise on the part of some in
considering the broad implications of a hoped-for decision. As an
attorney, you will do your part in helping the public, and your own
clients, understand a court's opinion or the boundaries of the law.
Sometimes there are unfair attacks upon a court or a specific decision
or a judge. Criticism of judgments is an integral part of our democratic
process. But to be valuable, the criticism should be of the judgment not
the judge. There is nothing wrong in criticizing a ruling. As former ABA
President Jerome Shestack observed, "[e]very lawyer who appeals is
criticizing a ruling." But, as an attorney, who recognizes that the Code
of Judicial Conduct requires that a judge abstain from public comment
about a pending proceeding, you will do your part by publicly defending
against unwarranted, unfair, or inappropriate criticism of the
judiciary. Similarly legislative intrusions and other intrusions that
threaten institutional independence should be opposed by attorneys when
they deem that intrusion to be violative of the doctrine of separation
of powers.

In undertaking these responsibilities you will often be afforded help
by our bar associations. Our state and local bar associations have since
their inception provided an avenue of communication and fostered
effective bench-bar relations. They have been an educational resource on
the role of the judiciary for schools, community groups, and the media.
They have, above all, been advocates for the decisional independence of
the Judicial Branch. I urge you to join and participate actively in the
initiatives spearheaded by your soon to be colleagues.

Throughout the history of our country and our state, attorneys have
played a vital role in ensuring the individual rights and personal
freedoms that we all enjoy. These freedoms are protected by adherence to
the rule of law which is a basic premise of a civilized society. These
rights have been safeguarded in large part by protecting the
independence of the judiciary to enter judgments protecting those
freedoms.

You are about to enter a noble profession. To uphold our liberties
with the honesty, courage and respect that they deserve is today, as it
has always been, the worthiest of pursuits. I extend to you, on behalf
of the justices of the Supreme Court and the men and women of the
Judicial Branch, the best of luck in your endeavor.